Judith Dinowitz wrote: > The problem here is terminology. If only that was the problem :)
> It's not occupied; it's disputed. It's always been disputed. There's > never been a single UN resolution saying that this is Palestine. It's > been owned by Egypt and by Israel. There's never been a country there. That's why they are called occupied territorries, and not occupied countries. > It's a territory whose ownership is in dispute. To go and accept the > word "occupied" is both false and giving in to propaganda. Occupied is the correct term for any territory where the country in charge denies the native residents elementary civil rights, such as the right to vote in general elections, it does grant its own citizens. And that definition has nothing to do with ownership or whether the territory ever was (part of) a country. That definition has to do with de facto control and civil rights. Jochem ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:169380 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
